posted
Mulai Ahmed er Raisuli the last of the Barbary Pirates
Mulai Ahmed er Raisuni , known as Raisuli to most English speakers, also Raissoulli, Rais Uli and Raysuni) (b. 1871,[1] Zinat, Tétouan – d. april 1925,[2] Tamasint, Al Hoceima[3]) was the Sharif (descendant of Mohammed) of the Jebala tribe in Morocco at the turn of the 20th Century, and considered by many to be the rightful heir to the throne of Morocco. While regarded by foreigners and the Moroccan government as a brigand, some Moroccans, especially among the Jbala, considered him a heroic figure, fighting a repressive, corrupt government, while others considered him a thief. Historian David S. Woolman referred to Raisuni as "a combination Robin Hood, feudal baron and tyrannical bandit."He was considered by many as "The last of the Barbary Pirates" though Barbary Coast piracy had ended by the middle of the 19th century. On the other hand, according to Douglas Porch, an American historian, Raisuni was part of the rule rather than the exception in that every successful Moroccan politician at the time combined villainy with sainthood.[5] He died in 1925 after having been captured and imprisoned by his rival Abd el Krim.
Raisuni was hardened by his imprisonment, and returned to criminality after his release. However, he became more ambitious than before, growing to resent the Sultan's fealty to the various European powers - Britain, France, Spain and Germany - jockeying for influence in Morocco. With a small but devoted band of followers, Raisuni embarked on a second career: kidnapping prominent officials and holding them for outrageous ransoms.
Raisuni's first victim was Walter Harris, an Englishman who already knew Raisuni. Raisuni demanded not money, but the release of several of Raisuni's men held in prison; Harris was released after only three weeks captivity.
Many of Raisuni's other victims of this time were Moroccan military and political officials; his men only rarely kidnapped Europeans. In between kidnappings, Raisuni extorted villagers living in territories controlled by his followers, executing those who refused to pay. Raisuni also periodically maintained a small fleet of boats for seagoing piracy; however, he was less successful in this endeavor than in his kidnapping and extortion schemes.
Raisuni had a mixed reputation. He became known for his chivalry and respectful attitude towards his hostages; he pledged Ion Perdicaris that he would defend him from any harm, and was known to have befriended many of his other hostages. He was also known as a well-educated man who enjoyed reading any book he could, and was extremely generous to his family and followers.
However, towards those who were not worthy of ransom, emissaries of the Pasha and the Sultan, or disloyal to him, he was known for cruelty. A favorite punishment of Raisuni's was burning out an enemy's eyes with heated copper coins. On one occasion, he returned the head of an envoy to the Pasha in a basket of melons.
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Book White Slaves Muslim Masters talks about this as does White Slaves, African Masters
Posts: 1296 | From: the planet | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
typeZeiss long time no ear. Mulai Ahmed Al Raisuli look like a mulato. He have a black man face and a black man beard. Before the African Atlantic slave trade there was a white Eastern European Slavic slave trade in middle age and renaissance Europe.
White European slave were exported to the Muslim world and Moorish Spain. Those slaves lighten the skin color of the Muslim world and Moorish Spain. The city of Venice was a center of the white Euro slave trade.
Posts: 5374 | From: sepedat/sirius | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged |
Anyway, yeah those slaves made it as far south as Mali and Cameroon to my knowledge. I know in the Cameroon example I think they had 300 european slaves in their army or so. They got them from Turks.
Also, the argument that light skinned so called berbers were in north africa all along defies eye witness accounts. For example Strabo said north africa was "over run" with Ethiopians in his day, thats around 60 CE or so. Herodotus also says north africa was ethiopian. He used that term when he didn't know the name of the people. When he did know the name of the people he was describing he used it, instead of calling them "ethiopians".But that didn't mean they were white, because he used their names. Just means he was familiar with who they were. It is with the Arab traveller Ibn Hawqal that we start to see whites in north africa around 900 CE. Specifically he says of the berbers one group was white, and he attributed that to them being in the north, but that the black ones were the original type to be found in North Africa. Silly assumption on his part, but that would have been 200 years of importing Europeans into N. Africa by the time he wrote what he wrote. So by then only one group was white, the rest black. We know too that the trade doesn't stop until 1800s or so. So they had a LONG time to bring in all these people. People do some stupid things to each other, thats for sure.
Posts: 1296 | From: the planet | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Mulai Ahmed er Raisuli the last of the Barbary Pirates
Original Barbary Pirates
We can see how concubinage of white women can alter them over the centuries.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^The royal house of Morocco is Arabic. Or at least, that is what they say.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol: ^The royal house of Morocco is Arabic. Or at least, that is what they say.
They are supposedly shareef i.e. descendants from the Holy Prophet Muhammad. They entered al maghrib from Yemen. Dumb Africans invited them there thinking they would get blessings from having a shareef in their city and they ended up getting the tables turned on them.
Same thing happened in Mauritania which is why you have black africans acting like real slaves in their own country because of Yemeni savages they invited in.
Posts: 1296 | From: the planet | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol: ^The royal house of Morocco is Arabic. Or at least, that is what they say.
They are supposedly shareef i.e. descendants from the Holy Prophet Muhammad. They entered al maghrib from Yemen. Dumb Africans invited them there thinking they would get blessings from having a shareef in their city and they ended up getting the tables turned on them.
Same thing happened in Mauritania which is why you have black africans acting like real slaves in their own country because of Yemeni savages they invited in.
Good info. And yes, I do agree it's effectively destructive. The whole "being arabized" process leaded to this behavior.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mena7: King Mohammed V of Morocco in other close up picture have a mulato face with curly short hair. He look like a light skin black.
The Yemenite Arab that migrated to Morocco, Spain and Mauritania were black and brown skin.
The thing is, Arab royal houses have taken in Central European slaves in harems. For hundreds of years.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol: ^The royal house of Morocco is Arabic. Or at least, that is what they say.
They are supposedly shareef i.e. descendants from the Holy Prophet Muhammad. They entered al maghrib from Yemen. Dumb Africans invited them there thinking they would get blessings from having a shareef in their city and they ended up getting the tables turned on them.
Same thing happened in Mauritania which is why you have black africans acting like real slaves in their own country because of Yemeni savages they invited in.
Good info. And yes, I do agree it's effectively destructive. The whole "being arabized" process leaded to this behavior.
I am researching the Haratins right now. I am very curious about who they are historically. The problem is though, as you pointed out, they have been arabized to the point they don't even speak their original language. Arabization was VERY detrimental in North Africa to say the least.
Posts: 1296 | From: the planet | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
King Muhammad V of Morocco look like a mulato or light skin black person. He have dark yellow skin. His hair is frizzy not soft. He put grease on his hair.
There are rumor that King Hassan II real father was the black Prince of Marrakesh Glaoui Pasha the black panther of Morocco. King Hassan II is the father of King Muhammad V.
posted
^ Irregardless, ALL the forefathers of the Alaouite dynasty were originally black.
quote:Originally posted by typeZeiss: I am researching the Haratins right now. I am very curious about who they are historically. The problem is though, as you pointed out, they have been Arabized to the point they don't even speak their original language. Arabization was VERY detrimental in North Africa to say the least.
A couple of tidbits to help your research:
The Haratin are not a single ethnic group but a caste or social class within the Saharan Berber or Sanhaja social system. They represent the lowest class next to slaves and perform the agricultural work and production. The various Haratin groups are spread out from the Sahel, throughout oases in the Sahara all the way to the slopes of the anti-Atlas area. Many Western scholars in the past tended to dismiss the Haratin as "recent" immigrants or descendants of slaves from Sub-Sahara. And while this may be the case in some particular Haratin groups (especially those who intermarried with slaves), it is certainly not the case for all Haratin. In fact, old studies on Haratin in certain oases in the Sahara show them to have blood-groupings that are quite distinct from 'Sub-Saharans' yet more common among (certain sections of) Berbers as well as ancient Egyptians. Even cranial studies align them with ancient Egyptians.
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol:
quote:Originally posted by typeZeiss:
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol: ^The royal house of Morocco is Arabic. Or at least, that is what they say.
They are supposedly shareef i.e. descendants from the Holy Prophet Muhammad. They entered al maghrib from Yemen. Dumb Africans invited them there thinking they would get blessings from having a shareef in their city and they ended up getting the tables turned on them.
Same thing happened in Mauritania which is why you have black africans acting like real slaves in their own country because of Yemeni savages they invited in.
Good info. And yes, I do agree it's effectively destructive. The whole "being arabized" process leaded to this behavior.
Mind you the 'sharif' claim within Arabia is tenuous enough, the vast majority of Arabs or Mulsims outside of Arabia claiming sharif or noble descent via relation to Muhammad is bogus. In Africa for example, there are many African converts who may not even have Arab descent at all but that hasn't stopped them from fabricating an Arab tribal lineage, let alone one that connects them to Muhammad's family. Hell, the same practice is done in Indonesia and the heavily Islamic part of the Philippines where clerics and nobles claim some Arab ancestry even ones tracing to Muhammad even though it's false.
But even then, some of the Arab tribes who invaded Africa especially many of the Yemeni tribes were black in appearance and not much different from Africans. Dana has cited many sources showing Europeans calling Arabs (and not just Africans) as 'Moors' and equally black.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Man, Leave for an few days, And this Forum is underattack.
Fake Nubian running around destroying important threads because people are schooling him on TRUE EGYPTIANS. Usually you counter with your own info. Sadly for Racists less and less is there corruption. Blacks AND Whites putting the truth out there. Makes me Laugh at how pathetic you must be to post old articles ignoring DNA TRIBE and others that have shown Ramses as being E1b1a African. Bahahahaha REally man NOT EVEN EAST AFRICAN BUT WEST AFRICAN?? That Gotta hurt.
Like I always say, Don't let the Trolls anger you. Think of them as an excuse to post REAL TRUTH.
Hence I support All True Truthseekers to post the FACTS. Hopefully Ausar is around to delete most of Fake Nubians threads of foolishness.
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ LOL I think Oxy-Moron is upset about the sexual slavery of white women, perhaps because some of these white sex slaves were the Muktaba's own ancestresses. We all know during the Middle Ages the Turks imported many Eastern European women into the Middle East whose numbers soon overcame the number of European male slaves (Mamluks). This explains why there are so many white and pale off-white people in the Mesopotamian and Levant area, hence the white Muktaba troll. Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Irregardless, ALL the forefathers of the Alaouite dynasty were originally black.
quote:Originally posted by typeZeiss: I am researching the Haratins right now. I am very curious about who they are historically. The problem is though, as you pointed out, they have been Arabized to the point they don't even speak their original language. Arabization was VERY detrimental in North Africa to say the least.
A couple of tidbits to help your research:
The Haratin are not a single ethnic group but a caste or social class within the Saharan Berber or Sanhaja social system. They represent the lowest class next to slaves and perform the agricultural work and production. The various Haratin groups are spread out from the Sahel, throughout oases in the Sahara all the way to the slopes of the anti-Atlas area. Many Western scholars in the past tended to dismiss the Haratin as "recent" immigrants or descendants of slaves from Sub-Sahara. And while this may be the case in some particular Haratin groups (especially those who intermarried with slaves), it is certainly not the case for all Haratin. In fact, old studies on Haratin in certain oases in the Sahara show them to have blood-groupings that are quite distinct from 'Sub-Saharans' yet more common among (certain sections of) Berbers as well as ancient Egyptians. Even cranial studies align them with ancient Egyptians.
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol:
quote:Originally posted by typeZeiss:
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol: ^The royal house of Morocco is Arabic. Or at least, that is what they say.
They are supposedly shareef i.e. descendants from the Holy Prophet Muhammad. They entered al maghrib from Yemen. Dumb Africans invited them there thinking they would get blessings from having a shareef in their city and they ended up getting the tables turned on them.
Same thing happened in Mauritania which is why you have black africans acting like real slaves in their own country because of Yemeni savages they invited in.
Good info. And yes, I do agree it's effectively destructive. The whole "being arabized" process leaded to this behavior.
Mind you the 'sharif' claim within Arabia is tenuous enough, the vast majority of Arabs or Mulsims outside of Arabia claiming sharif or noble descent via relation to Muhammad is bogus. In Africa for example, there are many African converts who may not even have Arab descent at all but that hasn't stopped them from fabricating an Arab tribal lineage, let alone one that connects them to Muhammad's family. Hell, the same practice is done in Indonesia and the heavily Islamic part of the Philippines where clerics and nobles claim some Arab ancestry even ones tracing to Muhammad even though it's false.
But even then, some of the Arab tribes who invaded Africa especially many of the Yemeni tribes were black in appearance and not much different from Africans. Dana has cited many sources showing Europeans calling Arabs (and not just Africans) as 'Moors' and equally black.
What you wrote about Haratin is not exactly true. There are some who are Mande i.e. soninke, bambara etc and these were slaves yes. Then there are other groups who they have no idea (supposedly) who they are etc. Haratin are also called black moors.
As far as being Shareef and who is or isnt. Unless you can point to a genetic study, the fact is you have no more of a clue as to what they are than anyone else.
Dr. Michael Gomez of NYU once said he used to doubt claims of Mande people coming from Yemen originally, which you can find in books like Tarikh al Fettash and Tarikh Al Sudan, but now he says he isn't so sure it isn't true. My point is, you weren't there all those years ago so what you are expressing is a opinion, one that isn't based on facts.
As for Arabs being called moors, yes but Europeans were very specific. They would say tawny moor generally for arabs and turks and swarthy moor or blackmoor for black africans.
Swarthy means dark skinned but oxford dictionary says its origin is in the german word schwarz which literally means black.
It is also interesting to note that the Roman said there were people who were "swarthy" in Scotland such as the silures tribe
anyway i don't mean to be rude to you but we need to be careful when making claims. We don't know who some of these groups are who found there way into west africa. The fact of the matter is, as late as 500 BC we know pygmies were in west africa and not modern day black west africans. By 500 BC you did have tichett but was that large enough to hold the mass of people who now inhabit modern day west africa? Maybe, maybe not, I dont know. But i wouldn't be so quick to dismiss what people say about themselves, just because you don't want to believe it.
Posts: 1296 | From: the planet | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
typeZeiss you are right many West African ethnic groups claimed they migrated to West Africa from West Asia, the Nile Valley and Spain. Exemple the Yoruba, the Akan, the Haussa, the Fon and the Fulani people etc claimed their ancestors migrated to West Africa.
quote:Originally posted by typeZeiss: What you wrote about Haratin is not exactly true. There are some who are Mande i.e. soninke, bambara etc and these were slaves yes. Then there are other groups who they have no idea (supposedly) who they are etc. Haratin are also called black moors.
And which part of what I wrote exactly is not true about the Haratin?? What you just wrote does not contradict anything I rather supports it.
quote:As far as being Shareef and who is or isnt. Unless you can point to a genetic study, the fact is you have no more of a clue as to what they are than anyone else.
Well that's the thing. There are many people who claim Sharif even though they have no Arab ancestry at all. Genetic studies were done on various Islamic populations.
Lioness created a thread about Arab lineages here.
quote:Dr. Michael Gomez of NYU once said he used to doubt claims of Mande people coming from Yemen originally, which you can find in books like Tarikh al Fettash and Tarikh Al Sudan, but now he says he isn't so sure it isn't true. My point is, you weren't there all those years ago so what you are expressing is a opinion, one that isn't based on facts.
One does not have to "be there" centuries ago to know what lineages they carry. Genetics can give us the answers, and they already have.
Here is a map of J-M267 (J1) lineages associated with indigenous people of the Arabian peninsula.
^ Note Yemenis have the highest frequency suggesting that the lineage may have originated there. But notice the vast area of Saharan and Sahelian West Africa is devoid of the lineage, including the heartland of the Mande people in Mali and Niger.
Here is a map of ALL J lineage frequencies (J*, J1, J2, etc.) in the entire world.
^ Note that non-Islamic Vietnamese have a presence of J lineages that have nothing to do with Arabs. Meanwhile Islamic Indonesians whose clerics claim Arab descent have no J lineages at all.
quote:As for Arabs being called moors, yes but Europeans were very specific. They would say tawny moor generally for arabs and turks and swarthy moor or blackmoor for black africans.
True, but what of Yemeni and certain Hejazi tribes who even in Arabia itself were described as black?
quote:Swarthy means dark skinned but oxford dictionary says its origin is in the german word schwarz which literally means black.
True, and there are degrees of 'blackness' or 'darkness'. These degrees were described even by ancient European authors like the Roman author Manilius in his work Astronomica Book 4
quote:It is also interesting to note that the Roman said there were people who were "swarthy" in Scotland such as the silures tribe
No more interesting than the English a millennium later who describe some Irish as "black Irish" because of their dark features.
quote:anyway i don't mean to be rude to you but we need to be careful when making claims. We don't know who some of these groups are who found there way into west africa. The fact of the matter is, as late as 500 BC we know pygmies were in west africa and not modern day black west africans. By 500 BC you did have tichett but was that large enough to hold the mass of people who now inhabit modern day west africa? Maybe, maybe not, I dont know. But i wouldn't be so quick to dismiss what people say about themselves, just because you don't want to believe it.
There was no rudeness at all. My evidence on people are based on written history, archaeology, genetics, as well as native traditions. Sadly the tradition of Mande descending from Yemenis is a common one found not only among the Mande but various other Africans who have been Islamicized in some degree. That no historical or other evidence supports these claims makes them questionable but now that genetic evidence confirms it only proves what not only I but Ausar and other peoples-- that some Muslim people will lie and fabricate Arab ancestry just to gain status in the Islamic community.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
^ Note Yemenis have the highest frequency suggesting that the lineage may have originated there.
On the other hand, diversity of J1 clade in Yemen is actually lower than those of either northeast Africa or north of the Arabian peninsula.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mena7: typeZeiss you are right many West African ethnic groups claimed they migrated to West Africa from West Asia, the Nile Valley and Spain. Exemple the Yoruba, the Akan, the Haussa, the Fon and the Fulani people etc claimed their ancestors migrated to West Africa.
I am not sure about the other groups, but you have to be careful with Hausa and Yoruba. They are not one people. Remember they had a empire and as such they absorbed many different people who then adopted Yoruba. For example in Western Yoruba land there is a group who are actually Mande but when their kingdom fell they migrated to Yoruba land and adopted Yoruba language. The same with Hausa, apparently that was the coming together if two people, one of which was indigenous, according to their own account.
Posts: 1296 | From: the planet | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:And which part of what I wrote exactly is not true about the Haratin?? What you just wrote does not contradict anything I rather supports it.
Ok so this is a direct quote from you:
quote:The Haratin are not a single ethnic group but a caste or social class within the Saharan Berber or Sanhaja social system. They represent the lowest class next to slaves and perform the agricultural work and production. The various Haratin groups are spread out from the Sahel, throughout oases in the Sahara all the way to the slopes of the anti-Atlas area. Many Western scholars in the past tended to dismiss the Haratin as "recent" immigrants or descendants of slaves from Sub-Sahara. And while this may be the case in some particular Haratin groups (especially those who intermarried with slaves), it is certainly not the case for all Haratin. In fact, old studies on Haratin in certain oases in the Sahara show them to have blood-groupings that are quite distinct from 'Sub-Saharans' yet more common among (certain sections of) Berbers as well as ancient Egyptians. Even cranial studies align them with ancient Egyptians.
You did say Haratin's are not one single group, but then went on to say they are the bottom of the totem pole etc.. Not all of them are on the bottom rung and not all of them are doing the same thing economically . THIS is what I mean when I said you are not 100% accurate. The only ones who are servile like you spoke are the ones who are as I mentioned Bambara, Soninke etc in origin. The true Haratin are free people and do not necessarily do such tasks as you have mentioned. So my point is, they can't be painted with the same brush across their spectrum, thats all I meant.
quote: Well that's the thing. There are many people who claim Sharif even though they have no Arab ancestry at all. Genetic studies were done on various Islamic populations.
Not exactly sure what that link has to do with the topic. We are talking about people in West Africa, not yemeni or maghribi groups. Now if you can show me studies of people who claim shareef/sidi origins IN WEST AFRICA, and they don't have Arab dna, thats one thing. But until that day comes, your just using your opinion, and one that isn't based on fact I should add. We know for a fact there were Jewish enclaves in Mali, There were definitely arabs that were invited in during the time of the empire as well, that is a documented fact. You should read Tarikh Fettash or Tarikh Al Sudan, talks about that in those books and those were written by africans who were there at the time.
/QUOTE]
quote:One does not have to "be there" centuries ago to know what lineages they carry. Genetics can give us the answers, and they already have.
Instead of admitting you don't know what your talking about, you bring up a link from this woman about people from Maghrib and Yemen :S again, you dont know and unless you can find genetic tests ON WEST AFRICANS who claim to be shareef or sidi, you are using your opinion based on non-facts. If you look at the Keita video from Chapel Hill he talks about a very dark people who he calls "blue black" in Sudan today who do not appear to look like what people have come to associate with Semites and yet they show clear Semitic DNA. He talks about that here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4sbLY6rxxg
quote:Here is a map of J-M267 (J1) lineages associated with indigenous people of the Arabian peninsula.
^ Note Yemenis have the highest frequency suggesting that the lineage may have originated there. But notice the vast area of Saharan and Sahelian West Africa is devoid of the lineage, including the heartland of the Mande people in Mali and Niger.
Here is a map of ALL J lineage frequencies (J*, J1, J2, etc.) in the entire world.
^ Note that non-Islamic Vietnamese have a presence of J lineages that have nothing to do with Arabs. Meanwhile Islamic Indonesians whose clerics claim Arab descent have no J lineages at all.
Tell you what, give me 20 minutes so I can go get a godaddy account, create a fake map for you, and then post it here for you, would that make you happy? Give me a study from a peer reviewed journal, written by geneticist who specifically looked at people claiming to be shareef/sidi/sayid in West Africa, THEN I will bite, until then, this is not scholarship, its just some map on some site of unknown origin.
quote:True, but what of Yemeni and certain Hejazi tribes who even in Arabia itself were described as black?
What about them?
quote:True, and there are degrees of 'blackness' or 'darkness'. These degrees were described even by ancient European authors like the Roman author Manilius in his work Astronomica Book 4[
quote:[No more interesting than the English a millennium later who describe some Irish as "black Irish" because of their dark features.
they call them black irish because 1. they have black hair, dark eyes, though their skin is just as white as their non "black irish" counterparts. Secondly because it is believed they are spawned by blacks. This may have some truth to it, if we are to believe St. Tysilio the Catholic Monk who claimed Africans ruled Ireland for a time and Britain for that matter. You can read about this in the book "The Chronicle of the Kings of Britain". To further substantiate that claim they have found african DNA in scotland and researchers believe you would probably find the same in Ireland. So, again not sure what your point in trying to bring up black irish, and quit incorrectly I should add.
quote: There was no rudeness at all. My evidence on people are based on written history, archaeology, genetics, as well as native traditions. Sadly the tradition of Mande descending from Yemenis is a common one found not only among the Mande but various other Africans who have been Islamicized in some degree. That no historical or other evidence supports these claims makes them questionable but now that genetic evidence confirms it only proves what not only I but Ausar and other peoples-- that some Muslim people will lie and fabricate Arab ancestry just to gain status in the Islamic community.
You keep talking about "proof", but outside of a map made by God knows who and a study lionness presented on people in the maghrib and yemen, I am not sure what "written history, archeology and genetics" you have provided, In fact I would venture to say you have provided none. Now, if we want to talk about written history, whose written history are you using to prove your point? If we want to talk about written history, Herodotus says that there are pygmies in West Africa in 500 BCE along the Niger. You can find that in Herodotus' The Histories in Book II Ch. 32
Then in about 40 BCE we get similar accounts in Strabo's "Geographies" in Book IV Ch 43.
We know that Mande people were not where they are today and the migration started around 2500BCE. We also know this was not one migration, but a few migrations, and they have various points of entrance into W. Africa and at varying times. For example, some go into Mauritania and start the Tichett kingdom starting between the 3rd and 2nd millennium BCE. There is also penetration into mali proper leading to djenne djenno and a even older kingdom called Kukia. But then you have later migrations, during the 600s CE. Again various peoples, being called Mande, coming from various places, and no one on this earth knows where they came from originally. If you think you can speak 100% accurately about who was in the sahara in 3,000 BCE your lying to yourself. Names change and people don't know if these same people who are all being called Mande today are the same people who were in the Sahara. Were some of them from that area, well sure, but all? Who knows, most certainly you don't and I would venture tos ay no one does, they weren't there. And unless a geneticist has gone and tested EVERY LAST PERSON in W. Africa then you bringing up genetics means nothing. You should get your hands on "West African Prehistory. by McIntosh and McIntosh in their 1981 peer reviewed article. This was in the American Scientist Vol 69, No 6. talks about the Pygmy peoples and some other interesting things. I like McIntosh and McIntosh, because if you read their early work to what they write now you can see the evolution of their thinking from a very eurocentric nonsense to a more grounded in reality worNow, can they assure you these people were in the Sahara the entire time? They have NO clue, because the Sahara hasn't been excavated to any real extent. So again, what written history are you on about? The only written history we have that talks about peoples origins written by the people themselves are the Tarikhs, The idea that you or anyone else know the truth of the matter is nothing more than arrogance and self aggrandizing. You don't know, period.
So I will ask again, do you have peer reviewed articles about the DNA of WEST AFRICAN peoples claiming shareef/sidi/sayid? If you don't then you are just talking with out any real facts. Also understand that Mande are not one people, just as Yoruba are not one people, just as Hausa are not one people. These were kingdoms and empires that absorbed various people who had varied origins, but eventually came to share a similar language culture etc. We know many of the Malian kings invited Arabs in to teach religion, or to settle in West Africa because of their Just like in America today, most in America speak english, wear similar clothing etc. However, are they a homogeneous group? No, not even close. As for who is or isn't from yemen, I present to you the same question. Do you have a peer reviewed source that looks at every group and individual in west africa? If not, then again, you saying "i have genetics proof" doesn't mean anything. Genetics is only as useful as the size of the sample group
Posts: 1296 | From: the planet | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by typeZeiss: Djehuti. Ok so this is a direct quote from you:
quote:The Haratin are not a single ethnic group but a caste or social class within the Saharan Berber or Sanhaja social system. They represent the lowest class next to slaves and perform the agricultural work and production. The various Haratin groups are spread out from the Sahel, throughout oases in the Sahara all the way to the slopes of the anti-Atlas area. Many Western scholars in the past tended to dismiss the Haratin as "recent" immigrants or descendants of slaves from Sub-Sahara. And while this may be the case in some particular Haratin groups (especially those who intermarried with slaves), it is certainly not the case for all Haratin. In fact, old studies on Haratin in certain oases in the Sahara show them to have blood-groupings that are quite distinct from 'Sub-Saharans' yet more common among (certain sections of) Berbers as well as ancient Egyptians. Even cranial studies align them with ancient Egyptians.
You did say Haratin's are not one single group, but then went on to say they are the bottom of the totem pole etc.. Not all of them are on the bottom rung and not all of them are doing the same thing economically . THIS is what I mean when I said you are not 100% accurate. The only ones who are servile like you spoke are the ones who are as I mentioned Bambara, Soninke etc in origin. The true Haratin are free people and do not necessarily do such tasks as you have mentioned. So my point is, they can't be painted with the same brush across their spectrum, thats all I meant.
You obviously have poor reading comprehension! You quoted exactly what I said word for word yet you still misunderstand! How is that?! I never said the Haratin were at the "bottom rung" of the social ladder! Such a position belonged to slaves, which I specifically stated Haratin were NOT, though some may have intermarried with slaves! Of course they were free people and have always been; however the Haratin are lower in status than the noble or elite clans of the Sanhaja. I agree with you as well that the true slaves were non-Berber peoples like Soninke and others from the south. So where is the disagreement??
quote:Not exactly sure what that link has to do with the topic. We are talking about people in West Africa, not yemeni or maghribi groups. Now if you can show me studies of people who claim shareef/sidi origins IN WEST AFRICA, and they don't have Arab dna, thats one thing. But until that day comes, your just using your opinion, and one that isn't based on fact I should add. We know for a fact there were Jewish enclaves in Mali, There were definitely arabs that were invited in during the time of the empire as well, that is a documented fact. You should read Tarikh Fettash or Tarikh Al Sudan, talks about that in those books and those were written by africans who were there at the time.
The link I provided has EVERYTHING to do with topic, since it deals with Arab lineages in Africas as a whole including WEST AFRICA, silly!
quote:Instead of admitting you don't know what your talking about, you bring up a link from this woman about people from Maghrib and Yemen :S again, you dont know and unless you can find genetic tests ON WEST AFRICANS who claim to be shareef or sidi, you are using your opinion based on non-facts. If you look at the Keita video from Chapel Hill he talks about a very dark people who he calls "blue black" in Sudan today who do not appear to look like what people have come to associate with Semites and yet they show clear Semitic DNA. He talks about that here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4sbLY6rxxg
LMAO It obviously YOU who knows not what he's talking about! Again, the thread I linked to discusses not only Maghrebis but ALL African peoples including those in West Africa!! And the maps I posted verify what Keita states since J1 lineages occur in significant frequency in southern Sudan where the 'blue-black' peoples speak of live, yet they do NOT occur in West Africa!!
quote:Tell you what, give me 20 minutes so I can go get a godaddy account, create a fake map for you, and then post it here for you, would that make you happy? Give me a study from a peer reviewed journal, written by geneticist who specifically looked at people claiming to be shareef/sidi/sayid in West Africa, THEN I will bite, until then, this is not scholarship, its just some map on some site of unknown origin.
LOL Those maps are not "fake" but come from peer-reviewed studies!! Who do you think made those maps? Lioness?! LOL
^ This map above comes from Di Giacomo et al. (2004)
^ This map above comes from Semino et al. (2004)
Just because the findings refute your beliefs that some West Africans have Arab lineages does not mean they are fake!
quote:What about them?
My point was that some Arabs particularly those indigenous Arabians of the south were indeed black.
quote:not sure what your point is.
I was merely answering your remarks. What was the point of yours??
quote:they call them black irish because 1. they have black hair, dark eyes, though their skin is just as white as their non "black irish" counterparts. Secondly because it is believed they are spawned by blacks. This may have some truth to it, if we are to believe St. Tysilio the Catholic Monk who claimed Africans ruled Ireland for a time and Britain for that matter. You can read about this in the book "The Chronicle of the Kings of Britain". To further substantiate that claim they have found african DNA in scotland and researchers believe you would probably find the same in Ireland. So, again not sure what your point in trying to bring up black irish, and quit incorrectly I should add.
Actually this is all a myth and a racist one the English cooked up to denigrate the Irish. The truth is dark features were part and parcel of not only the Irish but many peoples in the British Isles including the Welsh, Cornish, and many native Britons. This is the reason why later Western Anthropologists called the early inhabitants of the British Isles "Mediterranean race" as well. It has nothing to do with recent African or black ancestry. Which African DNA found in Scotland are you referring to?? Are you referring to this man here who has African ancestry from a great great grandmother from slavery times, even though he doesn't not even have dark features??!
quote:You keep talking about "proof", but outside of a map made by God knows who and a study lionness presented on people in the maghrib and yemen, I am not sure what "written history, archeology and genetics" you have provided, In fact I would venture to say you have provided none. Now, if we want to talk about written history, whose written history are you using to prove your point? If we want to talk about written history, Herodotus says that there are pygmies in West Africa in 500 BCE along the Niger. You can find that in Herodotus' The Histories in Book II Ch. 32
Again, you don't know what you're talking about. Lioness's thread wasn't just about the Maghreb but ALL of Africa! Arab lineages are nil to nonexistent in the West African area which is why those maps made by actual scientists show that! I don't know what Herodotus has anything to do with this!
quote:Then in about 40 BCE we get similar accounts in Strabo's "Geographies" in Book IV Ch 43.
Yes and what does this have to do with Arab ancestry among people in West Africa today??
quote:We know that Mande people were not where they are today and the migration started around 2500BCE. We also know this was not one migration, but a few migrations, and they have various points of entrance into W. Africa and at varying times. For example, some go into Mauritania and start the Tichett kingdom starting between the 3rd and 2nd millennium BCE. There is also penetration into mali proper leading to djenne djenno and a even older kingdom called Kukia. But then you have later migrations, during the 600s CE. Again various peoples, being called Mande, coming from various places, and no one on this earth knows where they came from originally. If you think you can speak 100% accurately about who was in the sahara in 3,000 BCE your lying to yourself. Names change and people don't know if these same people who are all being called Mande today are the same people who were in the Sahara. Were some of them from that area, well sure, but all? Who knows, most certainly you don't and I would venture tos ay no one does, they weren't there. And unless a geneticist has gone and tested EVERY LAST PERSON in W. Africa then you bringing up genetics means nothing. You should get your hands on "West African Prehistory. by McIntosh and McIntosh in their 1981 peer reviewed article. This was in the American Scientist Vol 69, No 6. talks about the Pygmy peoples and some other interesting things. I like McIntosh and McIntosh, because if you read their early work to what they write now you can see the evolution of their thinking from a very eurocentric nonsense to a more grounded in reality worNow, can they assure you these people were in the Sahara the entire time? They have NO clue, because the Sahara hasn't been excavated to any real extent. So again, what written history are you on about? The only written history we have that talks about peoples origins written by the people themselves are the Tarikhs, The idea that you or anyone else know the truth of the matter is nothing more than arrogance and self aggrandizing. You don't know, period.
Of course there have been many migrations of people who live in areas today that their ancestors did not live yet what does this have to do with Arab origins?? The Mande are a West African people who speak Niger-Congo (West African) languages and West African culture yet we are to believe from some Islamic groups among them that their ancestors are Arabs or Yemenis??
quote:So I will ask again, do you have peer reviewed articles about the DNA of WEST AFRICAN peoples claiming shareef/sidi/sayid? If you don't then you are just talking with out any real facts. Also understand that Mande are not one people, just as Yoruba are not one people, just as Hausa are not one people. These were kingdoms and empires that absorbed various people who had varied origins, but eventually came to share a similar language culture etc. We know many of the Malian kings invited Arabs in to teach religion, or to settle in West Africa because of their Just like in America today, most in America speak english, wear similar clothing etc. However, are they a homogeneous group? No, not even close. As for who is or isn't from yemen, I present to you the same question. Do you have a peer reviewed source that looks at every group and individual in west africa? If not, then again, you saying "i have genetics proof" doesn't mean anything. Genetics is only as useful as the size of the sample group
What does any of this have to do with the findings that Arab lineages in West Africa are nil in West Africa?? I cited two peer-reviewed sources per the maps above. That there are West Africans who claim to have Arab ancestry even though they have NO Arabian lineages, meanwhile in southern Sudan there are peoples who claim no such Arab ancestry yet carry lineages identified with such should tell you something.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have disagree with on this one Djehuti on south sudan.
There are some arabs in new south sudan country and central sudan in the old sudan and sudan claim arab ancestry.
That's why the the green and red are shown,but keep in mind some of these arabs do have have arab J1 ancestry at all,but some do have J1 but that's before the arabs so it's not arab,but it arabian black.
Those who say they don't have arab ancestry in south sudan or central sudan do not have arab ancestry or even J1 they know their history well and there is the dna info i posted awhile ago on sudanese.
posted
The J1 mostly in sudan and ethiopia is M267 i believe. Maybe someone reply and help clear it up.
Here is something about J1.
In Arabic countries, J1 climaxes among the Marsh Arabs of South Iraq (81%), the Sudanese Arabs (73%), the Yemeni (72%), the Bedouins (63%), the Qatari (58%), the Saudi (40%), the Omani (38%) and the Palestinian Arabs (38%). High percentages are also observed in the United Arab Emirates (35%), coastal Algeria (35%), Jordan (31%), Syria (30%), Tunisia (30%), Egypt (21%) and Lebanon (20%). Most of the Arabic J1 belongs to the J1c3 variety.
_____ J1-P58 (J1b2 on the ISOGG tree, formerly known as J1c3) is by far the most widespread subclade of J1. It is a typically Semitic haplogroup, making up most of the population of the Arabian peninsula, where it accounts for approximately 40% t 75% of male lineages. The dominant lineage in the Arabian peninsula is J1-L147.1, which corresponds to the demographic explosion that followed the Muslim conquest in the 7th century CE.
# J1-L147.1 is the main Arabic cluster as well as the Cohanim haplotype (YCAII=22-22) among Jews.
Posts: 2560 | From: Somewhere | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Firewall: Here is something about J1.
In Arabic countries, J1 climaxes among the Marsh Arabs of South Iraq (81%), the Sudanese Arabs (73%), the Yemeni (72%), the Bedouins (63%), the Qatari (58%), the Saudi (40%), the Omani (38%) and the Palestinian Arabs (38%). High percentages are also observed in the United Arab Emirates (35%), coastal Algeria (35%), Jordan (31%), Syria (30%), Tunisia (30%), Egypt (21%) and Lebanon (20%). Most of the Arabic J1 belongs to the J1c3 variety.
posted
Just like thought,If i am reading this right and if not someone set me straight. J1 is not in nilo-saharan populations in southern sudan or southern central sudan (south kordofan). I remember that chart.
Only 17% of the arabs in sudan have J1-P58 or J1-L147.1
Meaning that's the real arab ancestry,but it's higher in the capital.
The real arab ancestry in nilo-saharans is less then 5% and i bet all of that is in the north.
The last time i check none of it was in the south.
Posts: 2560 | From: Somewhere | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know the Arab, Shuwa, Baggara of Sudan claim arab ancestry but they do not have arab ancestry.
quote- The origin of the Baggara is undetermined. According to a 1994 research paper, the group arose in Chad from 1635 onwards through the fusion of an Arabic speaking population with a Fulani population. DNA tests indicate they have a common lineage with Chadic and Fulani speakers. Like other Arabic speaking tribes in the Sahara and the Sahel, Baggara tribes have origin myths claiming ancestry from specific Arab tribes who migrated directly from the Arabian peninsula or from other parts of north Africa.
_________
Has for North Kurdufan,well it's suppose to be central sudan,but now it is to be southern sudan and central sudan.
So on this point J1 would be SINCE THERE ARE ARABS there,so Djehuti would have a point here,and i do not know or have that much info on the african population there so he might be right when it come to this region and i think that's the region he is talking about since it is considered the new central and southern sudan .
This is what happens when a country splits.
Central sudan in the sudan is now considered the new southern sudan,and the southern sudan is not southern sudan,it's a new country called south sudan and they have there north's and south's and central etc...
Here is that info for southern sudanese,but they are just now south sudanese and not sudanese, sudanese any more since this info was before the split.
quote:Originally posted by typeZeiss: Djehuti. Ok so this is a direct quote from you:
quote:The Haratin are not a single ethnic group but a caste or social class within the Saharan Berber or Sanhaja social system. They represent the lowest class next to slaves and perform the agricultural work and production. The various Haratin groups are spread out from the Sahel, throughout oases in the Sahara all the way to the slopes of the anti-Atlas area. Many Western scholars in the past tended to dismiss the Haratin as "recent" immigrants or descendants of slaves from Sub-Sahara. And while this may be the case in some particular Haratin groups (especially those who intermarried with slaves), it is certainly not the case for all Haratin. In fact, old studies on Haratin in certain oases in the Sahara show them to have blood-groupings that are quite distinct from 'Sub-Saharans' yet more common among (certain sections of) Berbers as well as ancient Egyptians. Even cranial studies align them with ancient Egyptians.
You did say Haratin's are not one single group, but then went on to say they are the bottom of the totem pole etc.. Not all of them are on the bottom rung and not all of them are doing the same thing economically . THIS is what I mean when I said you are not 100% accurate. The only ones who are servile like you spoke are the ones who are as I mentioned Bambara, Soninke etc in origin. The true Haratin are free people and do not necessarily do such tasks as you have mentioned. So my point is, they can't be painted with the same brush across their spectrum, thats all I meant.
You obviously have poor reading comprehension! You quoted exactly what I said word for word yet you still misunderstand! How is that?! I never said the Haratin were at the "bottom rung" of the social ladder! Such a position belonged to slaves, which I specifically stated Haratin were NOT, though some may have intermarried with slaves! Of course they were free people and have always been; however the Haratin are lower in status than the noble or elite clans of the Sanhaja. I agree with you as well that the true slaves were non-Berber peoples like Soninke and others from the south. So where is the disagreement??
quote:Not exactly sure what that link has to do with the topic. We are talking about people in West Africa, not yemeni or maghribi groups. Now if you can show me studies of people who claim shareef/sidi origins IN WEST AFRICA, and they don't have Arab dna, thats one thing. But until that day comes, your just using your opinion, and one that isn't based on fact I should add. We know for a fact there were Jewish enclaves in Mali, There were definitely arabs that were invited in during the time of the empire as well, that is a documented fact. You should read Tarikh Fettash or Tarikh Al Sudan, talks about that in those books and those were written by africans who were there at the time.
The link I provided has EVERYTHING to do with topic, since it deals with Arab lineages in Africas as a whole including WEST AFRICA, silly!
quote:Instead of admitting you don't know what your talking about, you bring up a link from this woman about people from Maghrib and Yemen :S again, you dont know and unless you can find genetic tests ON WEST AFRICANS who claim to be shareef or sidi, you are using your opinion based on non-facts. If you look at the Keita video from Chapel Hill he talks about a very dark people who he calls "blue black" in Sudan today who do not appear to look like what people have come to associate with Semites and yet they show clear Semitic DNA. He talks about that here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4sbLY6rxxg
LMAO It obviously YOU who knows not what he's talking about! Again, the thread I linked to discusses not only Maghrebis but ALL African peoples including those in West Africa!! And the maps I posted verify what Keita states since J1 lineages occur in significant frequency in southern Sudan where the 'blue-black' peoples speak of live, yet they do NOT occur in West Africa!!
quote:Tell you what, give me 20 minutes so I can go get a godaddy account, create a fake map for you, and then post it here for you, would that make you happy? Give me a study from a peer reviewed journal, written by geneticist who specifically looked at people claiming to be shareef/sidi/sayid in West Africa, THEN I will bite, until then, this is not scholarship, its just some map on some site of unknown origin.
LOL Those maps are not "fake" but come from peer-reviewed studies!! Who do you think made those maps? Lioness?! LOL
^ This map above comes from Di Giacomo et al. (2004)
^ This map above comes from Semino et al. (2004)
Just because the findings refute your beliefs that some West Africans have Arab lineages does not mean they are fake!
quote:What about them?
My point was that some Arabs particularly those indigenous Arabians of the south were indeed black.
quote:not sure what your point is.
I was merely answering your remarks. What was the point of yours??
quote:they call them black irish because 1. they have black hair, dark eyes, though their skin is just as white as their non "black irish" counterparts. Secondly because it is believed they are spawned by blacks. This may have some truth to it, if we are to believe St. Tysilio the Catholic Monk who claimed Africans ruled Ireland for a time and Britain for that matter. You can read about this in the book "The Chronicle of the Kings of Britain". To further substantiate that claim they have found african DNA in scotland and researchers believe you would probably find the same in Ireland. So, again not sure what your point in trying to bring up black irish, and quit incorrectly I should add.
Actually this is all a myth and a racist one the English cooked up to denigrate the Irish. The truth is dark features were part and parcel of not only the Irish but many peoples in the British Isles including the Welsh, Cornish, and many native Britons. This is the reason why later Western Anthropologists called the early inhabitants of the British Isles "Mediterranean race" as well. It has nothing to do with recent African or black ancestry. Which African DNA found in Scotland are you referring to?? Are you referring to this man here who has African ancestry from a great great grandmother from slavery times, even though he doesn't not even have dark features??!
quote:You keep talking about "proof", but outside of a map made by God knows who and a study lionness presented on people in the maghrib and yemen, I am not sure what "written history, archeology and genetics" you have provided, In fact I would venture to say you have provided none. Now, if we want to talk about written history, whose written history are you using to prove your point? If we want to talk about written history, Herodotus says that there are pygmies in West Africa in 500 BCE along the Niger. You can find that in Herodotus' The Histories in Book II Ch. 32
Again, you don't know what you're talking about. Lioness's thread wasn't just about the Maghreb but ALL of Africa! Arab lineages are nil to nonexistent in the West African area which is why those maps made by actual scientists show that! I don't know what Herodotus has anything to do with this!
quote:Then in about 40 BCE we get similar accounts in Strabo's "Geographies" in Book IV Ch 43.
Yes and what does this have to do with Arab ancestry among people in West Africa today??
quote:We know that Mande people were not where they are today and the migration started around 2500BCE. We also know this was not one migration, but a few migrations, and they have various points of entrance into W. Africa and at varying times. For example, some go into Mauritania and start the Tichett kingdom starting between the 3rd and 2nd millennium BCE. There is also penetration into mali proper leading to djenne djenno and a even older kingdom called Kukia. But then you have later migrations, during the 600s CE. Again various peoples, being called Mande, coming from various places, and no one on this earth knows where they came from originally. If you think you can speak 100% accurately about who was in the sahara in 3,000 BCE your lying to yourself. Names change and people don't know if these same people who are all being called Mande today are the same people who were in the Sahara. Were some of them from that area, well sure, but all? Who knows, most certainly you don't and I would venture tos ay no one does, they weren't there. And unless a geneticist has gone and tested EVERY LAST PERSON in W. Africa then you bringing up genetics means nothing. You should get your hands on "West African Prehistory. by McIntosh and McIntosh in their 1981 peer reviewed article. This was in the American Scientist Vol 69, No 6. talks about the Pygmy peoples and some other interesting things. I like McIntosh and McIntosh, because if you read their early work to what they write now you can see the evolution of their thinking from a very eurocentric nonsense to a more grounded in reality worNow, can they assure you these people were in the Sahara the entire time? They have NO clue, because the Sahara hasn't been excavated to any real extent. So again, what written history are you on about? The only written history we have that talks about peoples origins written by the people themselves are the Tarikhs, The idea that you or anyone else know the truth of the matter is nothing more than arrogance and self aggrandizing. You don't know, period.
Of course there have been many migrations of people who live in areas today that their ancestors did not live yet what does this have to do with Arab origins?? The Mande are a West African people who speak Niger-Congo (West African) languages and West African culture yet we are to believe from some Islamic groups among them that their ancestors are Arabs or Yemenis??
quote:So I will ask again, do you have peer reviewed articles about the DNA of WEST AFRICAN peoples claiming shareef/sidi/sayid? If you don't then you are just talking with out any real facts. Also understand that Mande are not one people, just as Yoruba are not one people, just as Hausa are not one people. These were kingdoms and empires that absorbed various people who had varied origins, but eventually came to share a similar language culture etc. We know many of the Malian kings invited Arabs in to teach religion, or to settle in West Africa because of their Just like in America today, most in America speak english, wear similar clothing etc. However, are they a homogeneous group? No, not even close. As for who is or isn't from yemen, I present to you the same question. Do you have a peer reviewed source that looks at every group and individual in west africa? If not, then again, you saying "i have genetics proof" doesn't mean anything. Genetics is only as useful as the size of the sample group
What does any of this have to do with the findings that Arab lineages in West Africa are nil in West Africa?? I cited two peer-reviewed sources per the maps above. That there are West Africans who claim to have Arab ancestry even though they have NO Arabian lineages, meanwhile in southern Sudan there are peoples who claim no such Arab ancestry yet carry lineages identified with such should tell you something.
Instead of talking about things you have no knowledge of (which is your usual m.o.) answer my question. Do the studies look at groups in West Africa who SPECIFICALLY SAY THEY ARE OF ARAB ORIGIN.
As for irish and black dna they have found african dna in Scotland but they have not done genetic test on the irish yet, though researchers feel it will probably be the same.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-17740638
I have also presented a historical account of africans ruling in Ireland while you, as usual present your opinions. I notice a pattern with you. Anything you can not parrot from someone you look up to on this forum, you go in with the silly assumptions and opinion. You should learn to think for yourself and do real research. Also learn how to critical think about what your being told. Unless a study has looked at EVERY group in a area, it is useless to a conversation like this. Usually they have sample groups, and depending on thorough that is, it could be useless to say the least. Have you ever even taken a university level stats course? this is simple stats 101 you learn in first year.
Bottom rung = your stupid assumption, that out of the sinhaja (a group that no long exists) that the haratin are at the bottom is more stupidity. They are not one monolithic group and hence status of Haratin are not universal and yes some were slaves. Haratin isn't even a name a people called themselves, it is a later concoction. YOu need to do your OWN research instead of relying on crap you got from this forum and short google searches. Or just go to Africa (a place i know you have never been)
Posts: 1296 | From: the planet | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
I found this interesting from another forum.
Ethio Helix
quote:
J1 is generally frequent amongst the Sudanese Populations specially in the the metropolis of ( Khartoum 74%) ,the Nubians and sudanese Copts around 45% , so J1 was the Pre historic DNA marker of the Sudanese Nubian Populations then J1 is neolithic not arabian or semitic or even Jewish.
HERE we find that all Presidents of modern sudanese state are J1c3d Like the last one Omar al Bashir
Omar al-Bashir Y-DNA official Result; President of Sudan
First of all Sudanese are not J1. That study done in Khartoum that shows 74% is pure nonsense. Khartoum is home to all people from Sudan like the Beja, Nubians, Masalit, Fur Nilotes etc.
All these people don't have j1 that high.
The study was labeled arabs hence the high J1 frequency.
Sudan is corridor between egypt and the horn and these 2 nations don't have j1 above 25%
Ethio Helix GOT SOME of it wrong,J1 was not found in nubia in pre-historic times,it's recent and it came there from arabs and the beja in recent times.
By way the the beja was once called blemmyes a nomadic afro-asian speaking nubians group.
Desert nubians.
GO FURTHER BACK THEY WERE Medjay nubians. So he has a point and prehistoric J1 COULD have come from these nubians,not nile valley nubians.
The arab J1 from arabs later of course and prehistoric J1 FROM THE BEJA later.
Some folks just get the time period and J1's mixed up.
Posts: 2560 | From: Somewhere | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course J1 would be higher now on average in sudan since the the south split up,so it' time to adjust those percentages soon so folks do not have to be confused.
Posts: 2560 | From: Somewhere | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
One thing you can be sure of these geneticists' reports will never invoke slavery to explain Caucasus and Balkan genomic markers in North Africa, the Levant, and Arabian peninsula the way they always do for "SSA" AIMs
and they certainly know that the Arabs' European slave trade was big on little white girls especially Circassians
that said not to exempt Iberian **** toys in NA still ongoing today but not as slaves, mostly college girls, would be entertainers, and such
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: [QB] One thing you can be sure of these geneticists' reports will never invoke slavery to explain Caucasus and Balkan genomic markers in North Africa, the Levant, and Arabian peninsula the way they always do for "SSA" AIMs
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler:
and they certainly know that the Arabs' European slave trade was big on little white girls especially Circassians
Circassian slave girls are more associated with Turkish masters not the other Europeans captured in barbary raids by Arab/North Africans/ oucast European (corsair clients of Ottomans)
wiki:
Circassians, Syrians and Nubians were the three primary races of females who were sold as sex slaves in the Ottoman Empire. Circassian girls were described as fair, light skinned and were frequently sent by the Circassian leaders as gifts to the Ottomans. They were the most expensive, reaching up to 500 pounds sterling and the most popular with the Turks.
The Circassians, who had the custom of selling their own children, enslaved Greeks who had revolted against the Empire in 1821, and some others.
______________________________________________
Gale Encyclopedia of the Mideast & N. Africa:
Circassian presence goes back to the Circassian Mamluk dynasties of the thirteenth through sixteenth centuries
In contrast, the mass migration during the second half of the nineteenth century led to the formation of farming communities in areas of Anatolia and along what is commonly referred to in the literature on pastoralism as the interface of the "desert and the sown" in the Syrian province. The new Circassian communities often came into conflict with indigenous inhabitants over resources, water, and government services but eventually arrived at various accommodations, as evidenced by intermarriage and mixed settlement. The Circassian migration also led to a peak in the Circassian female (and to some extent, child) slave trade. Under pressure from the British Empire, black slavery via North Africa had ceased and the Balkans were no longer under Ottoman control, leaving the Caucasus as the main source of slaves for the Ottoman state.
Al-Rashid Sultan of Morroco 1631 – 1672 Mulay Ismail - Sultan of Morroco 1634/1645 – 1727
^^^ you mean these guys? I did a recent post on Mulay Ismail see Genomic Ancestry of North Africans end of page 16
I dunno if they're Arabs or just Arabized North Africans.
Something looks wrong with Mulai Ishmael's supposed image??? Who was his ulm?
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
What you just wrote does not contradict anything I rather supports it.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
It obviously YOU who knows not what he's talking about! Again, the thread I linked to discusses not only Maghrebis but ALL African peoples including those in West Africa!! And the maps I posted verify what Keita states since J1 lineages occur in significant frequency in southern Sudan where the 'blue-black' peoples speak of live, yet they do NOT occur in West Africa!!
Printer-friendly view of this topic